Comments on: Coalition to Challenge Legality of Prop 8

By: Attmay

Attmay — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:50:46 +0000

It’s Utah that should be boycotted, not California. Even if I wanted to, I can’t totally boycott California because I have family there.

But I put up a sign on my door saying “Mormons Not Welcome.”

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:16:46 +0000

Benjamin,

It might surprise you that the Court who ruled last spring isn’t comprised of Democrats. Of the seven justices, six are Republican.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:46:02 +0000

I cannot see the court who ruled on this last Spring just letting this go down without doing something to stand up for the civil rights of a minority group. Now that we have a majority of Democrats in Congress along with an absolutely incredible leader and ally in Barack Obama it is just a matter of time before we see a major pleasant surprise for us. The Democrats will make sure there is a SOLID, STRONG and IMPENETRABLE WALL between religion and the government.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:38:46 +0000

I think that when the California rules on this that part of the language of their decision should also include the fact that Evangelical Churches and the Mormon Church which has its headquarters about 1,000 miles from California were meddling with California’s civil rights laws and through lies, religious rhetoric and a lot of money they were able to persuade a slight majority of the electorate to pass prop 8. This should definitely be taken into serious consideration and should be included as part of the research and the evidence that is discussed in the court’s findings. This should be a serious indictment of the Mormon Church and of the various Evangelical Churches involved and Catholic Church as well. This needs to be brought into the open and bring a great deal of shame on these organizations for what they have done.

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:21:40 +0000

Suburban Dyke,

Do you really want to boycott the state of California when our real enemies are the Christian fundamentalists who swooped in from Utah and other states to push this vote on the California people? Millions of Californians voted No on Prop 8 and now you want to punish the victims of homophobia? That doesn’t make sense.

California needs your help, not a boycott – which is ill-conceived.

You can start by donating money to the Lambda Legal Defense, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU and earmark it for “marriage equality in CA”.

That needs to be your response to our persecutors. A boycott of California, where 1 out of every 8 people in the US lives and which has an economy in the billions, would not only be ineffective and silly but would serve the interests of our “friends” in the Christian Coaltion and the Catholic and Mormon churches.

By: suburban dyke

suburban dyke — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:57:15 +0000

Let’s fight back. Let’s boycott California wines, produce and travel. Let’s publicize it. Let’s embarrass them. It worked a few years ago in Colorado. What do say?

By: werdna

werdna — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:45:03 +0000

Yes, Prop 8 was challenged before the election on the same basic theory but the CA Supreme Court denied the petition without comment (leaving open the filing of this new petition).

The court gave no specific reason, but people who know more than I about these things have written that courts don’t usually like to rule on hypothetical questions. Until the proposition passes, it’s hypothetical. So there’s nothing really odd about their decision not to make a ruling until after the election when they have an actual concrete issue to address.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:25:13 +0000

cowboy,

I believe it was pointed out. But the Courts let the proposition go forward. I’m not sure what the reasoning was.

By: cowboy

cowboy — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:04:21 +0000

Timothy,

Couldn’t that conundrum have been pointed out BEFORE the election? It might have saved a lot of time and money.

By: Jason D

Jason D — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:03:41 +0000

Mark I’ve been saying that for years.

I would tell religious people.

1 – Since you believe marriage is sacred
2 – The government seems to be ill equiped at keeping marriage scared

3 – Take marriage away from them, then! We don’t let the government preside over baptisms, why marriage?

Simply eject the word “marriage” from our laws, and replace it with “civil unions” You won’t have the government sanctioning gay marriage, because it won’t be sanctioning marriage at all.

Effects:

All legal “marriages” would retain the same rights and responsibilities under a new name.

The word marriage would not apply to gays, straights, or anyone else….at least in a legal sense.

Religious institutions would be free to perform whatever marriages they like. Civil Union paperwork would be required to have the committment legally recognized.

Socially, anyone could claim they are a married couple — but that is already the case anyway.